Just what IS your spiritual bent? - Page 2

Yamyam · 8th June 2002, 22:59

I'm an agnostic, I suppose. The only time I've ever felt much sympathy for a religious point of view was when I was working with some Quakers, which is a fairly obscure Christian group.

One core belief I remember from them is about 'living one's life as Jesus would', which, I guess, is what I try to do. It doesn't always work, but I'm working on it.

I'm saddened by people who claim to be religious, while being spiteful, evil, and hateful. Especially when it's in the name of religion.

I don't want to upset anyone, so I won't list all of the reasons why, but I really feel that while religion might be okay, some of its adherents give it a bad name.

azraelle · 8th June 2002, 23:06

Quote:

On 2002-06-08 23:59, Yamyam wrote:
...but I really feel that while religion might be okay, some of its adherents give it a bad name.

Which was the point of the Marty Feldman movie in the '80's called "In G.O.D. We Trust"!

Firefox · 11th June 2002, 00:06

I like Francis's analysis. We are told that the God sent bad things to test us, or that we must have blind Faith in order to reach heaven.

It sounds like the words of someone who is making it all up in order to perpetuate a religion or trying to find spiritual reasoning to justify humanity. And furthermore, the root of many of these religions was a code to subdue people to conformity in times very different to our own.

Nevertheless I still think religious thinking has something to offer if one picks and chooses from the various ideas, especially from the more sensible religions such as forms of Buddhism.

Laurieheels · 11th June 2002, 06:34

The book that we now call bible is just many little books written over a thousand or so years. Heck, what goes in the front was written after the middle! Why? To keep people in line, of course.

I believe the basic message of being good, and it's a great idea, but it was communicated in a way designed for a society that is not ours, and so today, we cannot see the relevance because we are enlightened and advanced in our societies as far as technology and medicine.

But to keep order and obedience three thousand years ago, creating a story about why God did things and the bad he could bring to those who were bad helped.

Heck, some of the stories, like the Flood story, are two different versions written into one story. Like, take two of every animal, and then it says take seven of every clean animal, or something like that. It's not well organized, but it worked back then. Today, we just remember two of every animal.

It's subjective. SO when we read it, we need to take out the basic belief and discard the trapings. They were not meant for us, they were written for another society in another time.

12th June 2002, 09:10

I am cristian-lutherian. I visit my church very seldom.

I don't care if anybody belive in some different God that mine. I am afraid of every kind of fundamentalism (cristian, islam, jewish).

Firefox · 12th June 2002, 17:08

Quote:

On 2002-06-11 07:34, Laurieheels wrote:

It's subjective. SO when we read it, we need to take out the basic belief and discard the trapings. They were not meant for us, they were written for another society in another time.

So true, but the number of people trying interpret the old texts word for word, or even more tenuous, trying to present the message so it refers to modern life, defies any logical approach.

An example from the Jewish Faith: It's forbidden to light fires on the sabbath. The modern equivelant of lighting a fire is "deemed" to be switching on a light. Thus it is forbidden to switch on a light. Enter the special "Sabbath switch" where the light is switched on by breaking a beam which trips a relay which turns on the current for the light. Because the current is not switched directly by breaking the beam, this switch is "deemed" acceptable for use on the Sabbath.

It seems to me the clerics of all religions should get together with the lawyers to decide which way they should twist and turn next. Surely the original message has been completely submerged by such niceties?

Laurieheels · 13th June 2002, 05:01

Religion is already muddled enough, do not invite lawyers into it... we'll never be able to figure it out after that!

Francis · 13th June 2002, 10:27

the lawyers may even find a way to sue God for something or other.
I think getting God to the court room and enforcing the decision would be difficult

Nikk · 13th June 2002, 11:25

What I should / should not do is for me to square with my conscience before God. Scripture is a good guide & so is the experience of other believers, and secular writing can also play a part here.

But in my opinion, once you start down a legalistic route of breaking the spirit of the law but making sure that you remain just inside a specific interpretation of the letter, then you should ask why. God knows what is in our hearts; hiding behind ritual & semantics won't fool God.

To put it another way, I'd rather devote my energies to doing "good stuff" than covering my backside.

Dr. Shoe · 13th June 2002, 20:14

I am a Baptist (believer's baptism at the age of 23).

However, to reassure Terayon, it doesn't matter which religion you follow as long as you stick to the principles of peace. There is no religion in the world that advocates murdering or persecuting people from other faiths.

Interestingly, Christianity is the only faith that follows "the Son of God" all other religions follow a prophet such as Mohamed.